You are not currently logged in.
Access JSTOR through your library or other institution:
If You Use a Screen ReaderThis content is available through Read Online (Free) program, which relies on page scans. Since scans are not currently available to screen readers, please contact JSTOR User Support for access. We'll provide a PDF copy for your screen reader.
PhyloCode: Pain, No Gain
Peter L. Forey
Vol. 51, No. 1 (Feb., 2002), pp. 43-54
Published by: International Association for Plant Taxonomy (IAPT)
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1554962
Page Count: 12
You can always find the topics here!Topics: Taxa, Phylogenetics, Terminology, Biological taxonomies, Phylogeny, Birds, Plant names, Evolution, Animal names, Zoology
Were these topics helpful?See something inaccurate? Let us know!
Select the topics that are inaccurate.
Since scans are not currently available to screen readers, please contact JSTOR User Support for access. We'll provide a PDF copy for your screen reader.
Preview not available
The PhyloCode suggests that by adopting its rules, taxonomists will gain clarity, uniqueness and stability compared with the use of Linnaean Taxonomy. This claim is questioned here by suggesting (1) that replacing the Types of Linnaean Taxonomy with the Specifiers of PhyloCode increases the complexity of decisions which have to be made, some of which go beyond nomenclature; (2) deciding which PhyloCode definition of a name to use demands knowledge of phylogenetic support and likelihood of future changes in ideas of relationships; (3) Phylogenetic Nomenclature will have limited value because it names only monophyletic groups, and (4) confusion over naming taxa is not avoided by the PhyloCode and can lead to problems when used alongside Linnaean Taxonomy. The problems concerning Linnaean rank and raised by Phylogenetic Nomenclature are upheld.
Taxon © 2002 International Association for Plant Taxonomy (IAPT)